The Tribal Roots of Rejecting Democratic Election Results

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

It is noteworthy that Arab countries reject the results of democratic elections, or rebel against them, or obstruct the path of election winners, despite the various competing or feuding parties singing the praises of democracy and the necessity of its sovereignty and superiority over traditional methods of governance.

Arabs were greatly optimistic about the Arab revolutions and welcomed elections as good news, because of their capacity for the peaceful transfer of power and holding accountable those who fail to work toward the public’s concerns, but this optimism collides with disputes of multiple forms in a number of the Arab countries in revolt.

It seems there is a genuine problem in accepting election results, and that other social and political factors, preventing commitment to the standards of democratic practice, are worsening the state of instability witnessed in states like Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia. These factors are mostly rooted in the foundations of Arab society, especially those related to factors of social and political fragmentation.

The Ongoing Pattern of Rejecting Election Results

I have witnessed, in a number of Arab countries, attempts to bypass the results of democratic elections in union frameworks and student federations at universities, and I have seen how elections are called for as a civilized democratic gesture, only to have their results turned away from — a gesture entirely contradicting all the claims of democracy.

A near-tradition has prevailed in the Arab world: that those who lose elections form a parallel body to the elected representative body, to represent their own particular constituency, even at the expense of the smooth functioning of union work; and another tradition has also prevailed: that election winners serve their own particular constituency while nearly entirely ignoring the requirements of the “others’” constituency. In other words, election results are respected by neither the winners nor the losers.

This has long been a prominent phenomenon in Arab universities, where an official student council is formed through elections, but a parallel student council forms too, representing the groups that did not win, or representing intelligence services if the elected are not loyal to the regime. As a result, divisions and disputes continue, and the student council often fails to carry out its tasks professionally and achieve students’ interests. This outcome did not differ depending on who won the elections — failure was the lot of both the right and the left.

At the general political level, there is a rich Arab record of rejecting election results, and here are a number of cases:

1. The results of the local elections in Algeria were rejected in 1992, and the army intervened to control the political situation, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and enormous destruction of private and public property.

2. The Fatah movement rejected election results in the territory occupied in ‘67, resulting in further Palestinian fragmentation, and infighting that led to the killing of hundreds of Palestinians, and the formation of two governments for a people searching for the liberation of its homeland.

3. There is an Egyptian murmur of rejection of election results, through actions its leaders describe as protests against fateful decisions for Egypt’s fate. But the observer sees that the momentum and method of the protests do not match the development of the political situation in Egypt, and did not proceed smoothly toward calm understanding between the winners and losers of the elections.

4. There are voices in Tunisia speaking out against election results, trying to overturn the table on the winners and hold new elections before the winners even get their chance to govern.

Although political rebellion against election results might seem like a rebellion against the Islamic idea, since Islamic forces are the ones winning elections, Islamists themselves also rebel against election results in Libya, which they did not win.

The Historical Wellspring of Democracy

The democratic system emerged from a long struggle in Europe between various classes, factions, and spectrums, and was not the product of a political decision signed by a king or emperor, nor a replication of a non-European nation’s experience. Europeans waged a struggle spanning hundreds of years, marked by harsh, bloody internal wars, the destruction of property, the demolition of facilities, and the burning of buildings, farms, and headquarters, and settled, after learning the harsh lessons, on a system that transcends factors of fragmentation to bring them together, even if only in a static, numerical way, so they could live together in security, calm, and a renaissance whose good would extend to everyone.

It has never happened, in history, that a nation flourished through another’s thought, or advanced toward a renaissance on legs other than its own. Nations benefit from each other’s experiences, but do not replicate these experiences if they wish to surge forward powerfully. Imitation has never achieved creativity, and whoever overlooks others’ experiences moves away from success.

It seems we Arabs are enamored of imitation. For years, our intellectuals and thinkers have sung the praises of democracy and the democratic system, and so we loved to replicate it without passing through the bitter historical experiences that gave birth to it. Someone might say experiences are unnecessary because we can learn from others — but in saying so, they overlook the fact that it was the experiences Europeans went through that convinced them to overcome their factors of fragmentation.

What will convince the Arab that tribal fanaticism or partisan fanaticism will bring him nothing but calamities, and that he must respect the foundations of the democratic system if he wants to rise and progress? Unfortunately, the calamities themselves are the primary tool of persuasion.

Certainly some are willing to be convinced without calamities, but there are enough fanatics to ignite the fires of wars and infighting, and it is difficult for matters to settle easily. This means the march toward democratic stability cannot bypass the harsh European experiences, even though Arabs may not need hundreds of years to become convinced that the other (i.e., the internal rival) has needs and interests that must be respected.

Tribal Fanaticism

Arab society is characterized by multiple factors of fragmentation that have historically affected the formation of a cohesive, strong society moving toward renaissance, construction, and progress in various fields. Tribal fanaticism is considered the most important element of this fragmentation, often leading to bloody conflicts and chronic feuds that prevent cooperation and collective action. Arabs know full well how much tribal fanaticism has brought upon Arab tribes in the form of mutual raids, wars, and bloodshed.

By creation, according to the Islamic standard, God Almighty created people as peoples and tribes so they might come to know one another, and there is, in this arrangement, something serving all people, since mutual acquaintance holds good that leads to cooperation, ease, and the attainment of security. The Prophet, peace be upon him, rejected tribal fanaticism, describing it as “rotten,” and worked to establish brotherhood among the community of believers, understanding that this community would rise not through fanaticism but through working together according to the principles and requirements of faith. But tribal fanaticism assaults this noble divine goal and the Prophet’s tolerant example, turning social creation into a curse, distress, and hardship.

Tribal fanaticism is characterized by a number of matters dangerous to the harmony of the social fabric: a feeling of superiority over others that generates repugnant racist behaviors; the claim to know the absolute truth, that there is no truth except what the tribe carries, and that the tribe is right and everyone else is wrong; raising the individual to be dependent, with no entity, security, or support outside the tribe; raising him toward intellectual paralysis, with no need for his own mind as long as some great man thinks on his behalf; rejecting the other on the grounds that he is outside the tent, and dealing with him must remain within a circle of suspicion and conspiracy. The tribal conclusion says: “either me or no one.”

Excess of the Ego

Because the tribal mentality feeds its members with excessive self-regard, false pride, arrogance, and haughtiness, an excessive ego develops within the individual — whether an individual ego that draws its selfishness from tribal belonging, or one that dissolves entirely into the tribe — forming a great obstacle before developing concepts of the wider society, the public interest, belonging to the nation, and commitment to its aspirations.

The person of excessive ego has his own concepts, which he considers the general concepts everyone must abide by, and he has no objection to isolating himself, separating, or fighting for the sovereignty of his own concepts. He sees the public interest only through himself, and if the public interest contradicts his private interest, his private interest remains his banner.

The person of excessive ego holds an imaginary, not a merited, standing, and always seeks to prove his existence and prestige through repeated self-praise, pride built on imaginary victories, and self-affirmation through accomplishments that never occurred. He does not hesitate to demean others in order to affirm himself and negate the other.

His psyche is projective, not achievement-oriented, and instead of proving himself through work and diligence, he exhausts himself defaming others, demeaning them, and mocking their accomplishments, and in this lies a guarantee of society’s destruction.

Tribe and Party

Tribal fanaticism has been reflected in parties and organizations across the breadth of the Arab homeland, such that the behavior of the party member has become largely similar to the behavior of the tribesman. The fanatical party member does not necessarily know his party’s principles, and there is no need for him to know, because there is someone at the top who supposedly knows or understands, and no need for him to think, because there is someone who thinks for him, decides for him, and markets him.

Every party has a sheikh not too different from the tribal sheikh except in some appearances, and he drives people like stray sheep chanting stale slogans behind him that may lead to their slaughter, so they fall victim to what they believe is duty and right, and festivals and chants are held over their souls.

Few party leaders actually know the party’s principles and values, or its social, struggle, and economic theory. The overwhelming majority of party members are a mass of people who do not know what they are defending or what they are aiming for. In our Arab situation, there are stark examples of this: there are Sunni and Shiite fanatics, and neither side knows what the other side actually proposes, except for those matters leaders wish to promote in order to spread hatred and strife.

There are nationalists defending Arab fragmentation, communists defending capitalism, religious people defending paganism, democrats defending despotism, patriots defending subservience to the foreigner, and unionists defending separation. You might not find them doing this in speech, but you will find them doing it in deed.

It is clear in the Arab arena that the overwhelming majority of those who take up positions in the state turn the institutions they run into centers for themselves, employing their relatives, friends, fellow townsmen, and fellow party members regardless of their competence. In doing so, they demolish the institution, rendering it incapable of carrying out its assigned role. And this is what they do to the state as well.

Democracy Is a Culture

Democracy is a culture, not a political decision. Westerners have mastered it because it is their own daughter, the product of their historical development, while we have different historical experiences. Perhaps we would do well to work on developing our own political system, one for us Arabs and Muslims, that establishes justice among people and uplifts the whole nation across various fields. But is it possible to develop a historic system without suffering? The answer is yes, if reason overcomes the tribe.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “الجذور القبلية لرفض نتائج الانتخابات الديمقراطية” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.